"Boris H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wanted to use AFS storage my all data, including mySQL data, and Oracle data. And >the data is always changing.
I think it is a bad idea to load database files in AFS. - its relatively slow (network connection!). - AFS is a distributed filesystem, the database can only run on a single machine - if you need a distributed database use one - AFS consistency is guarantied upon the closure of a file, but a database keeps its files open virtually all the time. > Because I worry about the data losing, I want to use multiple RW > replicas. Even if the master volume occur errors, the other replicas > could support my application automaticly. Since OpenAFS does not > support multiple RW replicas, do you have the other good idea about > my requirements? What kind of errors do you fear in the master volume? How do you tell if a volume might suffer from a silent data corruption? If you do not trust your hard disc manufacturer, go for a proper raid in your database server. If you fear a fire in your server room, some scsi-over-ip thing (or something else) might help you to locate the discs in different locations. A properly distributed database is probably the better idea. Don't get me wrong: I thing AFS is good for what it's made for, but not for database files IMHO. Yours, -- Martin Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uni Karlsruhe, Institut f. wissenschaftliches Rechnen u. math. Modellbildung Engesser Str. 6, 76128 Karlsruhe _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
